Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimization
Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> Tue, 21 October 2014 04:19 UTC
Return-Path: <dougb@dougbarton.us>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B25C91AD02D for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 21:19:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.012
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5frfR7iKHzNT for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 21:19:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dougbarton.us (dougbarton.us [208.79.90.218]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76EB41AD029 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 21:19:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bcn-dbarton.lan (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:d:92:a4e5:5248:a7bd:87a6]) by dougbarton.us (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CC2C122B11 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 04:19:16 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dougbarton.us; s=dkim; t=1413865156; bh=kUlpsd6tH9tQzuOpXvKDTNllBK2cbY0ueK28w1FiKns=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=pAiPQ92N5XHw0j0ETvqkfAUSx1kOEN7uK/FYzMsU2RXl/ubA/KGmPpxs8+HwafGZD uSclZ7se+6TupoRbQ5csJUjLIz0yQApWuXmaj7nak+a9+VduKW7fuvEe452W8cVwBQ 5OMs/R3bmc9wZdefJEd4k60NbuMq545YZQPWgH4g=
Message-ID: <5445DEC4.4020909@dougbarton.us>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 21:19:16 -0700
From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dnsop@ietf.org
References: <CA+nkc8AVaJtKGF1iUvTW50d9mwdsEf7SbGExV+Oq2vPmGu7P5w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+nkc8AVaJtKGF1iUvTW50d9mwdsEf7SbGExV+Oq2vPmGu7P5w@mail.gmail.com>
OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Tw3Aoe35O-evjVAWjW-5H_pMfjA
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimization
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 04:19:19 -0000
On 10/20/14 2:03 PM, Bob Harold wrote: > I support the idea of qname minimization, but I think there is a common > case where it will cause additional DNS round trips, slowing the > response and increasing the number of packets and queries the servers > must handle. > > Consider “www.host.group.department.example.com Your analysis is correct, but only for a cold cache. Once the resolver has cached the NS records for group.department.example.com the penalty no longer applies. One thing that may be a worthwhile consideration though is a way to cache that host.group.... is not a zone cut. That would further reduce the penalty. FWIW, I also have some concerns about empty non-terminals, but none of that slows me down in terms of supporting WG adoption. I think it's a worthy idea, and I'll do what I can to help. Doug
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimiz… Tim Wicinski
- [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimization Bob Harold
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimiz… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimiz… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimiz… Doug Barton
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimiz… Masataka Ohta
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimiz… Ray Bellis
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimiz… Masataka Ohta
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimiz… Ray Bellis
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimiz… Edward Lewis
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimiz… Masataka Ohta
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimiz… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimiz… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimiz… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimiz… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimiz… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimiz… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimiz… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimiz… Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimiz… Doug Barton
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimiz… Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimiz… Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimiz… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimiz… Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimiz… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimiz… David C Lawrence
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimiz… Masataka Ohta
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimiz… Nicholas Weaver
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimiz… Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] Possible slower response with minimiz… Mark Andrews